Summary

The hearing is over. And while this single hearing alone did not solve racism in America forever, we did get a sharper look from voting rights experts on what a world without preclearance will look like.

The panel of experts followed statements from congressmen John Lewis and Jim Sensenbrenner strongly calling for congress to pass a new coverage formula for preclearance.

Some of the issues that came up:

• Is section two of the VRA - "normal lawsuits" that can be filed in jurisdictions with discriminatory results - strong enough on its own to beat back contemporary forms of voter discrimination? Carvin, the Republican witness, believes that section two has always been the most effective measure. Levitt and several senators, however, countered that section two doesn't help those in predominantly smaller, rural districts without the resources or national spotlight to speedily draw in legal assistance.

• Carvin argued that section five was being misapplied in the drafting of election maps and primary structures, citing examples of mostly black districts where their changes were blocked by section five.

• Concerns were raised about long wait times in voting lines, which some might consider forms of racial discrimination - since they mostly take place, needlessly, in areas with large minority voting blocs.

There will be a House hearing on the VRA tomorrow. Thanks for joining us.

8.10pm BST

Senator Amy Klobuchar tries to steer the conversation to another form of subtle discrimination: wait times! Perhaps some readers are familiar with this phenomena.

Weinberg notes that many polling places she's familiar with in Florida, particularly with those with high minority populations, have long waits because they're understaffed and have few polling booths. And especially when early voting is limited, lines can last hours and hours. Why could that be?

Levitt adds that these "are not unsolvable problems." Starbucks, for example, has figured out how to not have customers wait in line for seven hours. Perhaps election officials could consider similar remedies.

Carvin, of course, believes that "long lines have nothing to do with discrimination."

8.05pm BST

Levitt gives an anecdote to show how vital these protections are even now: in 2011, even, we had state legislators referring to black voters as "Aborigines."

7.58pm BST

Levitt recommends that Congress focus on how to seek remedies for discrimination in smaller, rural districts - not the "big shiny" cases that get quickly lawyered-up under section two, like those in Illinois that Carvin was mentioning.

7.42pm BST

Senator Richard Blumenthal notes that chief justice Roberts blamed congress for not using the evidence it had gathered properly in determining the coverage formula. Shouldn't that be congress's determination, whether it has used evidence properly in crafting laws?

Carvin says no; if the court sees that evidence for one thing has led to a statute governing another, then it can use that to declare the statute unconstitutional. Blumenthal notes that he and Carvin could go back and forth on this all day and moves on.

7.30pm BST

Levitt has formerly worked with NYU's Brennan Center for Justice, a well-regarded institution on voting rights. For this hearing the Center's Wendy R. Weiser submitted testimony, which you can read here.

7.27pm BST

Levitt explains that the problem, with the law as it is now, is that voting protections are dependent on an "army of lawyers" being available to sweep up all cases absent section five preclearance.

7.25pm BST

Senator Al Franken is up now. He was particularly offended by Justice Scalia's suggestion, during oral arguments in Shelby, that the only reason congress reauthorizes the VRA by near-unanimous votes is because it has a "nice name."

7.22pm BST

Weinberg agrees with Levitt that section two is insufficient.

Ari Melber (@AriMelber)

Absent Sec 5, 100,000 people could have lost their right to vote in Florida; Sec 2 alone is after the fact and insufficient. - Weinberg

Senator Durbin is asking Carvin about his claim that section two is an effective alternate to section five - one that justice Ginsburg addressed in her court dissent, saying that a discriminatory scheme could be in place for several cycles before a plaintiff's suit gathers enough evidence to stop it.

Carvin takes a shot at Durbin's state, Illinois, and how quickly groups there lawyer-up when a gerrymandered election map is issued. There's not much waiting time, he says. Durbin says it's different in "rural" districts, where the lawyering and evidence-gathering process takes much more time. It's not an industry like it is in Chicago, he says.

7.07pm BST

Levitt, the law professor at Loyola, is delivering his testimony. The Shelby County decision left a "sizable hole" in the VRA.

Even with "armies of lawyers," it's hard to use section two to fix all problems as they only attack one rule at a time, which allows election officials to quickly shift from one tactic to another.

"Normal lawsuits are like cruise liners," he says - large and slow to get moving. "While normal lawsuits are taking all this time to get up and going," discriminatory laws is up and moving. A quicker instrument like preclearance is the more adequate response.

7.00pm BST

Carvin, the DC constitutional attorney, is up. He considers section two - still in place - to be the muscle of the act, and claims it has done much more than section five to block discrimination. Section five is supposed to be a "supplement" to section two. (Section two allows for lawsuits anywhere - not just in "covered" states - where voting practices lead to discriminatory results.)

He claims section two is especially useful in targeting discrimination for second-generation immigrants. And he doesn't believe that section two lawsuits are too "slow" to process, as is a common complaint.

6.54pm BST

Weinberg, the commissioner of Aventura Florida - a Hispanic Republican - is delivering her testimony. "It's not a partisan issue," she opens.

She describes how she is "personally acquainted" with "repeated attempts" to discriminate against voters in South Florida since she came from Puerto Rico in 1986.

Osceola County, Florida, for example, has constantly attempted to limit Hispanic voters who might put in place "candidates of their choice."

The 1975 expansion of the VRA added five Florida counties with strong histories of voter discrimination. The application of section five has been "successful" on numerous occasions in fending off efforts to limit voting rights among Hispanics and women.

6.45pm BST

Lewis and Sensenbrenner already have to leave for votes in their chamber. A second panel of experts and local officials will convene now. Here's the partial roster:

"I'm not a civil rights hero," he says. "I'm a mechanic," and he thinks there are just some "parts" of the act that need to be fixed.

He describes the necessity of the VRA in 1965, at the height of the civil rights movement. The act "makes sure that everyone citizen regardless of race is able to have a say and participate in our democracy."

One of his proudest keepsakes, he says, is one of the pens that President Reagan used to reauthorize the act in 1982.

As for the 2006 reauthorization, which he ushered through the House, his committee received one of the largest collections of evidence - 12,000+ pages - he's ever seen to back up extending the law.

"By striking down section four... and thereby gutting section five... congress is presented with a challenge, and therefore a historic opportunity...

"I'm committed to passing a constitutional response to the Shelby County v. Holder decision... We cannot afford to lose [the VRA] now."

6.32pm BST

Congressman Lewis is testifying. He reiterates that sections four and five - the coverage formula and the preclearance requirement - are the "heart and soul" of the VRA, and watching the supreme court decision brought him to tears.

He's now describing what the South was like before the VRA.

Three friends of his who were working to register black people to vote in 1964 were "released" to the Ku Klux Klan and beaten to a pulp. In 1965, during Bloody Sunday, he talks about those in the Selma march who were "trampled."

"To this day I believe we are a better people, a better country" because of this act, he says. But the ability to make it more difficult for certain people to vote still exists today.

The right to vote is "precious. It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful non-violent" protest we have. The VRA is "needed," and "the burden cannot be" on those whose rights are violated. The duty is congress's to restore these provisions, right now.

6.18pm BST

The hearing is beginning. Leahy refers to Lewis as a "hero," Sensenbrenner as merely a "friend."

The VRA has "always" been a "bipartisan" enterprise and he "hopes that will continue today." He looks forward to working with both Lewis and Sensenbrenner going forward.

Leahy recounts how he had just gotten out of law school when he saw the graphic photos of Lewis and others getting beaten during Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, in 1965 - an effort that led to the passage of the VRA that year.

"No one's right to vote in this great nation should be... denied," he says, noting that we still see discrimination today.

6.15pm BST

Good afternoon, this is Jim Newell from Washington. Today the Senate judiciary committee will hold its first hearing on how to "restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act" since the supreme court struck down a key part of the historic 1965 law in late June.

The majority opinion, written by chief justice John Roberts, found the coverage formula's criteria dated. "The question is whether the act's extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the states, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's sharp dissent included the memorable line, "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

The ruling didn't strike out the preclearance section itself. But with the coverage formula that determined which states and municipalities required preclearance ruled unconstitutional, preclearance, as of now, is effectively eliminated.

The court's decision did, however, permit congress to work out an updated version of the coverage formula. While many consider the political odds of such a measure moving through both houses of this congress pretty grim, that's what today's first hearing, convened by senator Pat Leahy, is here to consider.

The hearing begins at 1pm. Witnesses will include congressmen John Lewis, a civil rights movement icon, and Jim Sensenbrenner, who steered the last extension of the VRA through the House in 2006.